#Operation Uphold Democracy

[captain-price-unofficially]

A convoy of 10th Mountain Division troops drive down a street near the Port Au Prince Airport during Operation Uphold Democracy. Helicopters line the sky in the background. 22 Sept 1994

[wilwheaton]

The Court’s decision to hear the Trump immunity case was outrageous, legally indefensible, and handled procedurally in a way that made it clear they were no longer acting as a court, but rather as the judicial arm of the Republican Party. They took a case they should not have accepted, agreeing to hear arguments that were already rejected in an expertly argued appeals court decision. Just as damagingly, they did so in a way that—regardless of their final ruling—would mean American voters would likely not hear a verdict before November’s election. It is a dark irony. They have chosen to hear the Department of Justice’s case against Donald Trump for election interference in a way that is itself election interference.

Supreme Court Picks Up Where Jan. 6 Mob Left Off

It’s so important to understand that, at a minimum, Thomas and Kavanaugh are not jurists who fairly interpret law according to Constitutional principles.

They are political activists and operatives who are abusing the power granted to them by the Constitution they will not uphold to force upon a nation that did not elect them a set of rules and conditions that are overwhelmingly -- overwhelmingly -- opposed by Americans.

I do not respect them. They have no credibility. They are Fascists who are taking apart the entire 20th century of American Democracy as quickly as they can.

If America survives this election, SCOTUS must be reformed immediately. The Trump justices must be removed, and Thomas must be impeached, then face a trial for his bottomless corruption.

[theology101]

I’m bored, so I’m rewriting fallout 4. Lets start with the big factions

Part 2

Fallout 4 Enhanced, part 1 - major factions

The Minutemen

So despite trying to uphold the values of Old World America, it’s a military junta made up of disorganized paramilitary troops. My brother in Christ, thats Yugoslavia.

After retaking the Castle, we should have the ability to form a democratic government and perfect the Commonwealth Provisional Government. And then have elections for Governor that the player can run for but also very much can choose not to. If you’re playing an evil Institute run one candidate should be Mayor McDonough as your puppet, but forbidding you from running. If we’re rebuilding America, let’s start with Democracy, eh? I think that the president should be Abigail Finch, but I’ll take Blake Abernathy or Preston Garvey.

Also, I want there to be a continuous through line of the Gunners-Minutemen rivalry. Honestly, once the Institute is gone, I want a big set piece battle against the Gunners in Quincy (maybe destroying the Overpass with Artillery?) and freeing the still captive population of Quincy. Give us a fourth act, semi protracted factional conflict

I think it would actually be fun if this was a multi faction battle, but we’ll get there.

Railroad

The biggest negative for them (besides the brain wiping) is that they put a lot of focus and effort into freeing *only* Synths. Which makes sense, because there are only Synth Slaves in the Commonwealth (besides ones explicitly being removed) - so here is an idea, say that is because of the Railroad. Make them be this famous and legendary group who’s broken up countless slaver groups and factions, and have no turned to the Synth as their latest Crusade.

It’d definitely give them a lot more good will with your average citizen who, even if they don’t like Synths, remembers their story. A large, established network that stretches across the entire East Coast that has the vast resources to fight the Institute on a level, if asymmetric, playing field. Hell, let’s even have a few long-term Brotherhood infiltrators who are leaking secrets to the Railroad (Maybe they’re a vertibird pilot who “throws their trash” and agents pick up the encoded message). They know of the Brotherhood and have agents in the Capital Wasteland, it isn’t impossible. There should be an option to assassinate Maxson and replace him with Danse whos more sympathetic and wont attack them, but also won’t work with them either.

Speaking of, during the Battle of Quincy, they should be freeing slaves. We see massive empty cages when we go in game, have them filled and make it the basis of the Gunner’s new slave trade operation. We convince Desdemona for a joint strike, so while our artillery is firing, a few squads of heavies and infiltrators hit the cages, free the prisoners, and bounce before anyone notices.

Brotherhood of Steel

This one is going to be the most radically changed, because I think the Brotherhood, while cool in principle, felt undercooked. Which is why I think there should be sub-factions within the Brotherhood of Steel - Hard Liners and Sympathizers, split between their view of Synths. Brotherhood Ideology is not monolithic, in fallout 2 there were debates if Super Mutants were bad, or Hostile Super Mutants only, and similar ones about Ghouls exist in Fallout 3. And then there are the ones who are Space Marines fighting for the God Emperor Elder Maxson.

Hard Liners: Kells, Quinlan and Teagen

Sympathetics: Ingram, Cade, Neriah and Madison Li

Maxson himself starts off as a Hardliner, but based off of choices in other questlines, the Brotherhood’s own new quest lines from the characters I just mentioned, and your charisma in dialogue checks, can be changed into being Sympathetic.

Kells is just a straight military man, also the easiest Hard Liner to convert once you convince him of the military impossibility of trying to actually find Synths, his quest would probably be making an airbase at one of your settlements for the Brotherhood. Quinlan is just a Maxson sycophant and propagandist and has fully bought into whatever Maxson says, even writing his propaganda piece, he also already has quests so he’s good. Teagan is a right bastard and Synth Racist, who will also disapprove of you making democracy if you’re a Minuteman - you have one quest were he sends a squad to intimidate your settlement and they kill the squad and you can either punish them or bring Teagan up on charges of plundering and terrorizing innocents.

Ingram feels a lot of sympathy for the Synths due to her own bio-mechanical nature and thinks that some institute tech can be used for good like agriculture or limb replacement. Her quests should be about finding a way to lessen her work load, maybe with robots, maybe by training and recruiting settlers, maybe by optimizing the Prydwen - her quest ends with her leaving the power armor frame and getting to sleep. Cade is a doctor, he isn’t too interested but since he cant tell a Synth from a Human under tests, he doesn’t really trust the Brotherhood to perform summary executions of them - his quest should just be getting the Covenant research to validate his assumption of ‘dont kill synths.’ Neriah thinks that Institute research in general, especially in bio science, and that Synth researchers with their long lives and rad resistance would be a massive boon for the Brotherhood, she also thinks Synths are similar to Star Paladin Cross and he was fine? - her quest already exists. Madison Li obviously values Synths and the Institute and, one step further, doesn’t want to destroy it either. Hold trials and take over? Sure, but not destroy a perfectly good lab filled with good people

Also, someone on the Sympathetic side is a Railroad agent but idk who, you decide! Not the only one, but definitely the highest ranking

Based off of all these people and their quests, I want a Far Harbor style “Everyone pause and let’s talk about it!” where there is just a full on debate between the leaders of the Brotherhood about wether or not Synths need to be destroyed, or just the method of creating and controlling Synths, allowing them to be free people. Hell, let this happen after Danse runs off but before you go get him. Make a case that the Institute records you stole have him as an escaped slave who then enlisted, of his own free will - while he needs to be taken off the active line of fire while the Institute still has the ability to control him (albeit only up close and if he hears it, so maybe just blast death metal?), let him be the thing that changes Maxson’s policy.

Or if you’re an absolute bastard, instead of doing anything that I just said you encourage everyone’s worst tendencies. Tell Cade that Covenant is almost there and that you let them carry on, get Proctor Ingram believing in conspiracy theories and Teagan an alt-right podcast where they debate whether or not the Brotherhood should have mandatory breeding regulations. I doubt anyone would play it, and all this option would do is lock you out of other stuff (probably preventing or toppling the Commonwealth Provisional Government but hey, at least you get to be Elder of the newly founded Commonwealth Chapter!), but if someone wants to be a bastard and not an unhinged freak who eats corpses, this is how

Let your choices in the story matter.

For the Battle of Quincy, just send a vertibird or two and drop in some guys in power armor and heavy weapons. Land them inside the walls while the Minutemen storm the gates - after the Artillery and Railroad have escaped, of course

The Good Ending

Before we get to the Institute, this is what I call the Good Ending. With the Brotherhood no longer having a desire to take down the Synth, and the Railroad, while powerful, very much lacking the firepower to take down the Institute, are both brought to the Castle for a meeting between Maxson, Desdemona, the Governor, Preston Garvey and you (if you’re not Governor-General). There is shouting, yelling, insults traded (maybe there is even an intermission) but unless you fuck up badly or intentionally screw yourself, you have a joint Minuteman-Railroad-Brotherhood attack force against the Institute.

The Brotherhood still play Pacific Rim, as a distraction, while Railroad operatives sneak through the tunnel system in the Charles. By the time Liberty Prime has blasted a hole into the Earth and Minutemen and Brotherhood troops are storming the base, Loyal and Rebel synths are already fighting on the ground for their freedom. Unlike in game, some of these scientists absolutely would not go down swinging. I can talk those nerds in bioscience or engineering are gonna fight to the Death? SRB sure, but come on. Maybe not all of them are genuine and there is some post game shit with that but with your planning and overwhelming advantage, the Institute falls rather bloodlessly

Now, you can decide to do what Arthur wants you to do and blow it up, or… you can decide to give the Institute to be jointly run by the three factions and the Synths. It’s just a social hub, maybe some act 4 shenanigans (racial conflict)

Oh boy,

The Institute

Hey what’s their goal?

Like, beyond keeping the surface permanently destabilized (Sabatouging any collective government, fomenting conflict between Goodneighbor and Diamond city, seeding Super Mutants at random to ensure chaos) so it remains their pretty, perfect little petri dish, what are their goals?

I got the idea for this from a youtube video, so I’m just gonna say it “Why did you program them to feel fear?” Like, what purpose does it serve to give the Synths complete, perfect sentience and then enslave them? The Gen 2s seemed to be doing just fine. Okay, maybe you wanted to make perfectly humanoid ones, why arent they all like Coursers? Why, why, why? And no one can give me a damn answer!

So, here’s an idea: Shaun is dying of Cancer, so he had his eyes set on True Immortality. A Gen IV Synth, perfectly capable of human thought and creativity, perfectly human in every biological way only superior - faster, stronger, quicker reflexes - immune to radiation, disease and starvation and, once they reach a certain age, become immortal. And I did say “reach a certain age.” Using biotech and nanomachines, lil Shaun is the first Gen IV Synth, born as an infant in a lab womb and fully capable of spreading as a new Ubermensch i mean, new tomorrow. Shaun was going to wait until the body was in its 20s, but his brain cancer is getting so bad that only fragments of his mind can be copied into the 10 year old body.

This should be an active debate of whether or not this is the next step in Cyborgs and Synths (after all, was Kellog not just a Synth at a certain point?) where as some view it as a gross violation of human dignity. Show me some angry academics, damn you! Regardless, some (especially older people) should be Quite Excited about getting flash copied into a “perfect” Gen IV body. This also, at least to me, explains why they needed to be perfectly human - they wanted a perfectly platform to hold onto their intelligence and not go insane or lose their “soul” like the Necrontyr-Necron. It gives an actual reason for all the weird shit they do

As Director you get to decide wether or not this gets to go ahead or not - also whether or not you should kill and replace people with Synths. Give me moral consequences, damn it, there is NO WAY Piper isnt getting replaced in an Institute Victory and you the player should have to carry that burden.

Also i want assassination missions where I replace people with Synths. I think it would be a fun stealth segment to get NPCs alone and either kill em or teleport em. We’re a shadowy cabal, we should be able to end all the faction disputes quietly. Send the brotherhood home, break apart the railroad in a single night. Right proper evil stuff. Or, if you want to play terminator, you role up with an army of death bots and destroy everything for the Gen IV Synth Army!

End Notes

Fallout 4 needed a fourth act. After the Institute is gone, nothing changes. I just blew up a solid chunk of cambridge and am i high ranking leader in two military governments and im a secret agent, and that’s it? No interaction with each other beyond killing? No “crossing idealogical boundaries for the greater good?” I don’t want to fanboy for New Vegas but there, I could cross boundaries and convince people to join their enemies for their own safety and betterment. Preston Garvey is just like “Hey, we can blow up the Blimp if you wanna. Danse is cool, and I know there are kids on board, but I don’t want them breathing down our neck.” Like, motherfucker I’m their Sentinel - no.

The point of the series is “War Never Changes, so Men Must Change.” There’s no change in Fallout 4. There is no seeing the bigger picture and reaching peace. Once the Institute blows up, most factions could probably just go home because the only reason they’d bother to do anything is to kill each other. And that’s deeply boring to me.

Next episode, the minor factions - Gunners, Children of Atom, Raider Gangs, and Super Mutants

[centrally-unplanned]

This article on how the Teamster's union turned away from the Dems and couldn't even endorse Biden/Harris due to a split membership reminds me of a point I wanted to spell out more explicitly. As the article details, the self-reported issues (which aren't 100% reliable but are perfectly valuable) that caused "switch" voters were increasingly cultural ones, people actively opposing liberal values and all that. At this point the data is quite firm on this point, this is just data source #871 I have read of swing voters talking about these as priorities, so for now I am operating as it being true.

You can imagine an ideal democracy as one composed of voters who vote based on enlightened altruism. They have a sophisticated understanding of how politics and policy works, only value the collective, and their choices aim to maximize utility or uphold moral axioms or whatever. Most votes are unanimous as you can imagine, and everything is great. You also will never have this.

But paradoxically, you can argue the opposite is also quite good; a system where every voter is a selfish asshole. They respect the fundamental norms, but otherwise vote for whatever benefits them most. Because people's selfish preferences are very heterogeneous, and economics is so often not zero sum, you generally have to build coalitions of compromise, and they can be pretty welfare maximizing! "making 51% of the country better off" is a bar many, many political systems do not clear. This is the "patronage" model of yore - Ol' Union Boss Tweed sits down with the Dems and says "give us X, and you got my vote".

You used to have a lot of that, but nowadays you can't even swing it. Voters are not selfish, they are ideological. Loosely so, and they are also selfish, but they have a lot of grand ideas about The Country that they slot those desires through. People vote on immigration despite never interacting with a single immigrant except maybe their house cleaner who they like and get for cheap. People vote on education issues over how "the system" is falling apart despite loving their local school and having no problems. Vibes dominante, and that tears apart the patronage network. Boss Tweed can't turn out votes because this members don't care about union shit the way they care about crime.

Some of this, to be clear, is that the political system is too complicated to hand out massive benefits to subgroups these days (if you wrote them all blank checks then you'd prob get some votes). And there are real local issues that people authentically care about, it's all margins here ofc. But generally it is a genie out of the bottle of culture - you can't hold coalitions together like this anymore. People have a vision for how "the country" should be, and that drives people more. Inflation will make people mad even if they personally are doing fine, because they perceive the country as doing worse. You increasingly need to meet those visions in elections, and every year another "interest group" fractures and decays.

[mariacallous]

Congress is moving closer to putting US election technology under a stricter cybersecurity microscope.

Embedded inside this year’s Intelligence Authorization Act, which funds intelligence agencies like the CIA, is the Strengthening Election Cybersecurity to Uphold Respect for Elections through Independent Testing (SECURE IT) Act, which would require penetration testing of federally certified voting machines and ballot scanners, and create a pilot program exploring the feasibility of letting independent researchers probe all manner of election systems for flaws.

The SECURE IT Act—originally introduced by US senators Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican—could significantly improve the security of key election technology in an era when foreign adversaries remain intent on undermining US democracy.

“This legislation will empower our researchers to think the way our adversaries do, and expose hidden vulnerabilities by attempting to penetrate our systems with the same tools and methods used by bad actors,” says Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The new push for these programs highlights the fact that even as election security concerns have shifted to more visceral dangers such as death threats against county clerks, polling-place violence, and AI-fueled disinformation, lawmakers remain worried about the possibility of hackers infiltrating voting systems, which are considered critical infrastructure but are lightly regulated compared to other vital industries.

Russia’s interference in the 2016 election shined a spotlight on threats to voting machines, and despite major improvements, even modern machines can be flawed. Experts have consistently pushed for tighter federal standards and more independent security audits. The new bill attempts to address those concerns in two ways.

The first provision would codify the US Election Assistance Commission’s recent addition of penetration testing to its certification process. (The EAC recently overhauled its certification standards, which cover voting machines and ballot scanners and which many states require their vendors to meet.)

While previous testing simply verified whether machines contained particular defensive measures—such as antivirus software and data encryption—penetration testing will simulate real-world attacks meant to find and exploit the machines’ weaknesses, potentially yielding new information about serious software flaws.

“People have been calling for mandatory [penetration] testing for years for election equipment,” says Edgardo Cortés, a former Virginia elections commissioner and an adviser to the election security team at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.

The bill’s second provision would require the EAC to experiment with a vulnerability disclosure program for election technology—including systems that are not subject to federal testing, such as voter registration databases and election results websites.

Vulnerability disclosure programs are essentially treasure hunts for civic-minded cyber experts. Vetted participants, operating under clear rules about which of the organizer’s computer systems are fair game, attempt to hack those systems by finding flaws in how they are designed or configured. They then report any flaws they discover to the organizer, sometimes for a reward.

By allowing a diverse group of experts to hunt for bugs in a wide range of election systems, the Warner–Collins bill could dramatically expand scrutiny of the machinery of US democracy.

The pilot program would be a high-profile test of the relationship between election vendors and researchers, who have spent decades clashing over how to examine and disclose flaws in voting systems. The bill attempts to assuage vendors’ concerns by requiring the EAC to vet prospective testers and by prohibiting testers from publicly disclosing any vulnerabilities they find for 180 days. (They would also have to immediately report vulnerabilities to the EAC and the Department of Homeland Security.)

Still, one provision could spark concern. The bill would require manufacturers to patch or otherwise mitigate serious reported vulnerabilities within 180 days of confirming them. The EAC—which must review all changes to certified voting software—would have 90 days to approve fixes; any fix not approved within that timetable would be “deemed to be certified,” though the commission could review it later.

A vendor might not be able to fix a problem, get that fix approved, and get all of its customers to deploy that fix before the nondisclosure period expires.

“Updates to equipment in the field can take many weeks, and modifying equipment close to an election date is a risky operation,” says Ben Adida, the executive director of the vendor VotingWorks.

Some vendors might also chafe at the bill’s legal protections for researchers. The legislation includes a “safe harbor” clause that exempts testing activities from the prohibitions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and bars vendors from suing researchers under those laws for accidental violations of the program’s terms.

There is also a funding question. The SECURE IT Act doesn’t authorize any new money for the EAC to run these programs.

“I hope Congress accounts for the necessary funding needed to support the increased responsibilities the EAC will take on,” says EAC chair Ben Hovland. “Investments in programs like this are critical to maintaining and strengthening the security of our elections.”

Meanwhile, the bill’s prospects are unclear. Even if it passes the Senate, there is no sign of similar momentum in the House.

[lost-carcosa]

In every Judge Joe Dredd story I’ve ever read, there is at least one almost comically obvious moment when the author makes clear that the protagonist is a jackbooted fascist and not someone to admire. This may come across to the average reader as heavy-handed, but when the richest man in the world misreads the character as heroic, you can see why such heavy-handedness is sometimes necessary.

Shortly before former Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida withdrew his nomination for attorney general, Elon Musk posted on X that Gaetz was the “Judge Dredd America needs to clean up a corrupt system and put powerful bad actors in prison.” Generally speaking, one’s model for justice should not be a fascist invented in part to illustrate the distinction between elite impunity and the brutality that ordinary people face. (Were Dredd’s zero tolerance for lawbreaking evenly applied to obscenely wealthy scofflaws like Musk himself, it would surely be less appealing to him.)

Musk’s media illiteracy is not particularly shocking—it seems to be part of a broader trend tied to the rise of Donald Trump. Genre stories that are meant to highlight the dangers of fascism, cruelty, or selfishness instead end up being misinterpreted or even condemned by those who find fascism appealing or see cruelty and selfishness as aspirational virtues.

The messaging in Dredd stories verges on didactic, but it also assumes at least a tacit objection to fascism in the reader. One of the series’ co-creators, Pat Mills, has said that his model for Dredd and the other judges was the monks at his parochial school, who subjected children to physical or sexual abuse. The stories are set in a dystopian future where several “megacities,” surrounded by a radioactive wasteland, are ruled by draconian judges. Initially established by the character of Eustace Fargo in response to rampant street crime, this judge system empowers its agents to convict and sentence those they deem criminals, and simply kill many of the people they encounter.

As mentioned, the implications of these stories are not exactly subtle. In one 2019 story arc, The Small House, Dredd confronts Judge Smiley, the Justice Department’s chief of black ops, over Smiley’s use of invisible assassins to murder democracy activists in Mega-City One. Dredd’s main objection to Smiley’s operations, it seems, is that Smiley’s assassinations are not following proper protocol. Dredd has no moral objection to killing democracy activists, but it has to be done by the book. Smiley calmly explains to Dredd, “We’re fascists. We rule. It’s the only way we can survive in this irradiated, dead world.”

Dredd is a true believer in the judge system, and as such lacks the corruption of his contemporaries. This renders him ethically superior only to the other fascists, however; he is an unthinking armed goon who would never allow the system to be changed just because the majority would prefer it. He acts fanatically in service to the unjust system he upholds, not to any larger ideals of honor or integrity. In the 2006 storyline Origins, a cryogenically frozen Fargo is briefly thawed and begs Dredd to undo the judge system. “It was never meant to be forever,” Fargo pleads, just before dying. “We’re the monster, we got greedy—wanted everything—so we killed the dream, Joe, we killed America!” Dredd, being Dredd, ignores Fargo’s pleas and, when asked later about Fargo’s last words, says Fargo wanted him to “keep the faith,” forever burying Fargo’s wish to end the judge system in favor of democratic rule.

As Trump reshapes the nation in his image, some of his supporters seem inclined to turn cautionary tales on their head, empathizing with villains or antiheroes to such a degree that they miss the point of these stories entirely, even when the writers make the message as clear as possible. We might call this problem Tony Soprano Syndrome, after the patron saint of flawed antihero protagonists. One undecided voter told a New York Times focus group earlier this year that Trump is “the antihero, the Soprano, the ‘Breaking Bad,’ the guy who does bad things, who is a bad guy but does them on behalf of the people he represents.”

Almost every single thing here is wrong, but it’s wrong in a way that illustrates the illiteracy that I am talking about. The Sopranos is by any measure one of the greatest television series of all time, focusing on the daily travails of a mob boss who tries to balance his mental health with keeping his marriage together and raising his children. But Tony is a murderer whose greed and ambition harm the people he claims to love. He is not a moral exemplar, nor is he intended to be; his selfishness helps no one else and is destructive to all around him. The same is true of Walter White, the protagonist of Breaking Bad, who at one point in the show literally looks at the camera and says of his crimes, “I did it for me.”

Again, the creators could not be more clear that these characters are horrible people whom others should not seek to emulate. There is a difference between thinking Darth Vader is an awesome character in the fictional context of Star Wars and, you know, wanting to be like Darth Vader, a psychotic child-killer. Quite similarly, Trump could not be more clear that he is out for himself, seeking the power of the presidency to enrich himself and his allies, protect himself from legal jeopardy, and bask in the cultlike adulation of his followers. But fans of Tony or Walter, living vicariously through the power and cruelty of the object of their admiration, invert the moral implications of those characters’ stories such that selfishness and malice are justified or laudable. In the same way, Trump supporters treat the real-life Trump, who seeks power for his own gain, as a fictionalized Trump whose vices are in service to a selfless cause.

Tony and Walter are also aspirational figures for a certain type of man experiencing a certain type of midlife crisis because, despite their body aging and their looks fading, they can still shape the world around them with a seemingly infinite capacity to endure or inflict violence. They want to tell themselves they’re protecting something—home and hearth perhaps—but actually want to validate themselves with a justification for hurting someone else, even if they have to invent one.

This is one reason the actor Anna Gunn, who portrayed Walter’s wife, Skylar, drew an intense backlash—she was the embodiment of the nitpicky wife whose jealousy held her husband back from greatness (as a murdering meth kingpin).

Walter represents the emotional state of a particular type of viewer—someone who wants to enjoy his ability to make himself feel good through violence and suffering, and doesn’t want his good time spoiled by a mouthy woman reminding him that the things he is doing are actually bad. This type of reactionary masculinity is itself emblematic of the Trump era, as if conservatives listened to feminist critiques of “toxic masculinity” and decided to shear all virtue from their conception of traditional manhood and retain only those parts that involve dominance and exploitation of others.

Examples abound. Last year, another heavy-handed comic-book adaptation, the television series The Boys—about a covert-ops group that targets the irresponsible corporate-produced “supers” who kill more people than they actually save—made its criticism of fascism so overt that many of its fascist-sympathetic fans began to get upset. These fans complained that the show had gotten “woke” once the plot began to more plainly illustrate the political points it had been making all along, to the dismay of those fans who were living vicariously through the antagonists’ acts of cruelty.

Similarly, the creators of the murderous Marvel Comics’ vigilante the Punisher have repeatedly clarified, to no avail, that, despite possessing some virtues, the character of Frank Castle is not a good guy. In addition to being a murderer, he is occasionally portrayed as a fascist. During the Civil War storyline, Castle is told off by his idol, Captain America, who describes Castle as  “psychotic,” fulfilling a “twisted notion of justice.” The Punisher creator Gerry Conway has called the embrace of Punisher iconography by real-life armed agents of the state “disturbing,” because “the Punisher represents a failure of the Justice system. He’s supposed to indict the collapse of social moral authority and the reality [that] some people can’t depend on institutions like the police or the military to act in a just and capable way.”

The collapse of trust in institutions is one of the stories of the past decade or so. But so is this moral degeneracy, motivated by the need to ideologically justify the place of a corrupt authoritarian strongman in the most powerful government in the world. What looks like declining media literacy may be something much worse—an affirmation of the underlying values in dystopian literature that inevitably lead to the dystopia itself.

[alainamama17]

The Erosion of Media Autonomy: Project 2025 and Echoes of 1930s Germany

Introduction

The autonomy of media agencies is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society. The Voice of America (VOA), under the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), has historically operated with editorial independence, free from direct government control. However, Project 2025 proposes changes that could shift this dynamic, echoing the media control strategies of Nazi Germany.

Project 2025 and the Voice of America

Chapter 8 of Project 2025’s policy guide suggests transferring the autonomy of the VOA to the executive branch, potentially undermining the firewall that currently ensures its editorial independence. This move could align the VOA’s messaging with the political objectives of the ruling administration, rather than allowing it to function as an unbiased source of news.

Nazi Germany’s Propaganda Machine

In Nazi Germany, Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, exerted total control over the media. The Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda dictated the content of all forms of media, ensuring that only messages which supported Nazi ideology were disseminated. This centralized control was instrumental in maintaining the Nazi regime’s power and suppressing dissent.

Comparative Analysis

Centralization of Control

The proposed changes in Project 2025 bear a resemblance to the early stages of media control in Nazi Germany. By centralizing media control under the executive branch, there is a risk of creating a state-run media that serves the interests of the government rather than the public.

Editorial Independence vs. Propaganda

The USAGM’s current structure, which guarantees the VOA’s editorial independence, is designed to prevent government interference and ensure objective reporting. The dismantling of this structure could lead to a scenario where the media becomes a tool for propaganda, as was the case in Nazi Germany.

Impact on Democracy

A free press is essential for democracy, providing citizens with the information needed to make informed decisions. The erosion of media autonomy, as seen in Nazi Germany, can lead to the suppression of critical voices and the manipulation of public opinion. If the USAGM were to lose its autonomy, it could have a similar effect on the democratic fabric of the United States.

Conclusion

The parallels between Project 2025’s proposed policies and the media control tactics of Nazi Germany are striking and serve as a cautionary tale. The independence of the VOA and other media agencies is vital for maintaining a healthy democracy. Any move towards centralizing media control under the executive branch should be carefully considered for its potential impact on the freedom of the press and the democratic principles it upholds.

[darkmaga-returns]

Originally published at CovertAction Magazine

The CIA likes to fashion itself as a heroic agency that helps to protect national security and uphold democracy around the world.

However, Hugh Wilford’s book, The CIA: An Imperial History (Basic Books, 2024), shows that the CIA draws directly from British and French colonial precedents, and adopts the same modus operandi as imperial intelligence services.

The latter is evident in the CIA’s support for coercive interrogation techniques and repressive surveillance apparatuses, and its recruitment and manipulation of tribal and minority groups, and refinement of psychological warfare techniques and deception operations.

According to Wilford, a professor of history at California State University, Long Beach who has written two previous books on the CIA[1], individual CIA officers have often been motivated by the same lust for foreign adventure and exotic sexual conquest as their forebears in imperial intelligence services.

Because the U.S. Empire rules more indirectly compared to its European forebears, the CIA has carried out more political skullduggery and coups than past European empires.

The skullduggery has often yielded significant blowback whose origins the domestic population does not largely understand because CIA activities are kept secret.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Gallagher: I'd like to follow up on that, maybe attempt to simplify it. We are fortunate to live in a democracy, and Dr. Wallander, would you say that the United States military in general holds itself to the highest ethical standards? Moral and ethical standards?

Wallander: Yes, congressman.

Gallagher: Would you say that our military takes great effort to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible?

Wallander: Yes, congressman.

Gallagher: Do you believe the United States intentionally targets civilians?

Wallander: I believe the US military does not intentionally target civilians.

Gallagher: And in Israel, we have a vibrant democracy as well, this is a great thing. Do you believe that the Israeli Defence Forces hold themselves to a high moral and ethical standard, just as the United States does?

Wallander: I do believe that the Israeli Defence Forces hold themselves to that high standard.

Gallagher: And Israel does not target civilians and takes steps to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible, correct?

Wallander: I believe that is a true statement, sir.

Gallagher: And is there any evidence at present that they are-- you emphasized in your testimony that they have a responsibility to protect civilians. I agree, I think they're doing-- going to great lengths to do just that and to uphold international law. Is there any that they are violating international law?

Wallander: I am not aware of any evidence that they are deliberately targeting civilians.

Gallagher: And so, contrast that. The high moral and ethical standards of the United States military and our allies in Israel, with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization, correct?

Wallander: Yes, congressman.

Gallagher: And Hamas does not care about human life, including the civilians in Gaza?

Wallander: Worse, Hamas exploits others' concern for civilian life by placing their capabilities and their fighters, protected by human shields.

Gallagher: That was going to be my next question, you anticipated the use of human shields. And many civilians in Gaza have died from Hamas rockets landing inside Gaza in Hamas' attacks on civilians. Correct?

Wallander: I believe there have been such validated incidents, yes, congressman.

Gallagher: The only thing I'm curious about is, Hamas could, if we applied the same standard, they have a responsibility to protect human life, Hamas could surrender today, release all of the hostages and the war presumably would be over. Correct?

Wallander: If Hamas ended their war against Israel, the conflict could be over today.

Gallagher: A final question on this front. Do you want Hamas to be removed from control of Gaza or would you like to see Hamas regain control of Gaza, at the risk of another October 7th-type massacre?

Wallander: The administration fully supports Israel's goal of destroying Hamas' ability to conduct these operations.

Gallagher: Thank you, I appreciate that.

[ Full video. ]

==

Exterminate Hamas.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ahmed Baba at Substack:

We exist within a Disinformation Age where our media consumption is fragmented, and there are no universally agreed-upon facts. Our social media feeds are at the whim of corporate-engineered personalized algorithms that are designed to reinforce our preexisting biases and capture our attention at all costs - even if that cost is the truth. Gone are the days of the dominant Big Three networks - ABC, NBC, and CBS - and major newspapers delivering centralized news in the mid-1900s. Americans now receive their news from a wide array of sources, from podcasters to social media creators. The gatekeepers are gone. While this has created great opportunities for honest independent media to rise, the incentive structure of an internet dominated by the attention economy encourages shameless, lying grifters as well. [...]

This information environment has been expertly utilized by a right-wing media ecosystem that weaponizes lies to exploit Americans’ distrust in institutions and innate human vulnerabilities - all for Trump’s benefit.

In the face of this incredibly well-funded, right-wing disinformation machine, there is no liberal equivalent pushing back. There is, of course, the mainstream media that sees its work as upholding objective reality, but it’s often plagued by false equivalency and both-sideism. Unfortunately, in the 2024 election cycle, it was clear that this wider mainstream media ecosystem didn’t always live up to the highest potential of the Fourth Estate. Just to be clear up front, I don’t subscribe to the broad, unnuanced attacks on the media. My take is more balanced. I agree that many outlets did, in fact, sanewash Trump’s unhinged rants, making him more palatable to voters, and Kamala Harris faced an unmistakable double standard in a lot of the coverage. However, I also recognize that there were bright spots in the 2024 election coverage that did work to accurately spotlight the threat of a second Trump term. During the 2024 election cycle, many journalists did phenomenal work. Mainstream networks like MSNBC constantly spotlighted the threats of Project 2025, and publications like ProPublica did invaluable investigative reporting. The New York Times also did excellent reporting but was often weighed down by its opinion page and poorly worded headlines. [...]

We Need More Fearless Pro-Democracy Journalism

I documented every day of Trump’s presidency during his first term, so I know a thing or two about how Trump operates. I also spent the past year writing and making appearances on MSNBC warning about Project 2025. I’ve also delivered guest lectures about media literacy in the Disinformation Age to thousands of middle school, high school, and college students over the past two years. Throughout all this work, I’ve come to the conclusion that journalists have to grow increasingly innovative with how they present truth and safeguard democracy. In the very first article I wrote in this newsletter last year, I argued why the media should be unapologetically pro-democracy, and I warned that the media was making similar mistakes they made in 2016. I wrote that journalism should act as American democracy’s immune system, rejecting the sickness of authoritarianism. Like the antibodies we develop after infection or immunization from a virus, journalists should recognize the historical patterns of authoritarianism, inform voters of its corrosive impacts, and trigger the public to mobilize against it.

That is what we need now, more than ever. Amid an avalanche of disinformation and outrage bait, members of the media should not only relay facts but help Americans interpret those facts with contextualized analysis. They’ll need to focus on the impact of policies and actions, not just the optics. As NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen says, journalists need to highlight the stakes, not the odds. Steven Bannon once said, “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” Journalists need to keep this in mind. Trump’s chaotic moves are often part of a strategy of distraction. We need to be on guard and parse through what truly matters and where we should direct the attention of the American people.

We know the Project 2025 playbook. Watch for moves to dismantle independent agencies, consolidate executive power, and undermine democratic safeguards. Journalists must call these out early and clearly. I’ve already been seeking to do that myself by spotlighting Trump’s hiring of Project 2025 loyalists. Covering Trump’s avalanche of lies will also be challenging. According to The Washington Post, President Trump told over 30,000 lies while in office, including the Big Lie that the election was stolen – a lie that would lead to an illegal attempted overthrow of American democracy by his own supporters. Journalists should cover Trump like the documented liar he is and never take what Trump says at face value or report his words verbatim and unchecked. When they catch Trump lying, they should not only fact-check but also place those lies in the broader context of Trump’s strategy. Focus on the why as much as the what. True objectivity isn’t fake neutrality. It’s upholding objective reality against disinformation. Anything less is a bias toward the liar. This is how the media should cover Trump's lies.

@Ahmed Baba wrote a solid piece detailing how media outlets should properly cover a 2nd Trump term: report the truth about Trump’s lies and autocratic aims fearlessly.

[sakebytheriver]

No, actually it shows that he's a cuck to the neoliberal civlity politics that the Democratic party handcuffs themselves to which ultimately leads to the decay of their ability to effectively campaign against literal neonazis and some of the dumbest motherfuckers to ever walk this earth

Look, I'm not a "don't vote" bitch, but I'm also not the bitch who will dick ride the Democratic party when they fail at being effective politicians and campaigners

The reason we have to have all this voting discourse in the first place is because the Democratic party cannot pick a candidate to save their lives, literally. Sure Joe Biden's entire record hasn't been as bad as his handling of the genocide in Gaza, but his campaign? His ability to look like an effective candidate in the eyes of the American electorate? Absolute dogshit.

The job of president is very different from the job of candidate and Trump is very very good at playing the role of candidate

The neoliberal civility politcs that the Democrats seem to believe is what will make the voters choose them mixed with their absolutely overbearing superiority complex and the overall aristocratic dynastic view of the people who front their political party is what will undo them. It goes back to the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsberg refused to retire before her flesh bucket expired because she got high off her own supply and believed herself to be ontologically superior to another judge who could take her place

The issue is that the Democrats are stuck believing they have to be above it all and try to reach across the aisle giving credence to people who want to genocide anyone they deem undesirable, they want to operate on this idea that they're "the adults in the room" but all they end up doing is come across to the electorate as spineless, condescending, and absolutely weak rich pricks who are completely out of touch with the American public

Joe Biden attempting to reach out to Trump after an attempted assassination attempt shows nothing except that he knows how to play the game and make the most standard and basic of gestures in a time like this, and ultimately the Democrats obsessive need to uphold the false idea that the American politcal system is some kind of noble exceptional system creating a mythos around it as if it's the new divine right of kings will be the undoing of the incredibly fragile illusion of liberal Democracy the American public has fought for centuries to take from the land owning elites

[minniethemoocherda]

Iridescent: Chapter 5

Summary: When Jazz is promoted to Head of Special Operations, the last thing he expected was to have to work with a face from his past.

A/N: So yeah sorry this might end up more of a slow burn then I initially intended... Xxxxxx

Ao3

FF.net

Prowl had spent most of his allotted sleep time re-reading the autobot code to see if there was a way to legally remove Jazz from his position.

Unfortunately short of treason, there was no way to remove a head of command without input from the others and as they were fighting to uphold democracy, Prowl had to concede to the votes of his peers, even if he disagreed with them.

Ultimately all his late night research had resulted in was a four hour recharge cycle. Which was even less than the six hours he usually allotted for himself which he had previously calculated to be the minimum amount of sleep needed so that he could ensure that he was using as much time as possible to attend to his duties. And now his functionality was below optimum usage which in turn had increased his stress levels, as his battle computer helpfully informed him.

Despite the late night, he was still able to arrive fifteen minutes early to the fortnightly command meeting.

For once he was not the first person there, as sitting in what was usually his chair with their pedes up on the oval table was the source of all Prowl’s current problems.

“Good morning Commander!” Jazz cried with a wave. 

Prowl didn’t have the patience hold back a cringe at the loud audio volume.

“That is my seat.” He told him.

“Sorry mech, didn't know we had assigned seating.” Jazz said, although Prowl’s processor was willing to bet that it was no coincidence that the spy had chosen that seat, if the times he had previously happened to coincidently be busking outside his old station whenever he was on duty were anything to go by. Which they were.

"Here ya are." Jazz said, graciously getting off the chair and offering it to him with a bow.

Prowl had learnt more than he would have cared to know about pranks from the twins to fall for that.

“Whilst do not have assigned seating, normally I would sit there. However, today I have decided to sit here instead.” Prowl said, pointed sitting in the chair next to him.

If Jazz had been about to protest, it was cut off as the rest of high command started to arrive. The spy quickly started up a conversation with Ironhide and within a minute, the gruff old veteran was laughing along with whatever tales Jazz was spinning like they were old friends.

Prowl watched as Red Alert skittered around the pair and scanned their usual seat for explosives before sitting down, one optic trained on Jazz. Prowl was glad that at least not all of high command had fallen for his charm.

Thankfully it wasn’t long before Optimus arrived by which point everyone had settled down.

Optimus blinked when his optics landed on Prowl. Prowl felt a twinge of guilt as he just released that he was sat where the Prime would often sit, even though he knew that Optimus would not be upset by it.

Instead Optimus' optics moved from Jazz to Prowl. For some reason that his processor, hadn't quite worked out the meaning of yet, Optimus was wearing a similar tired look to when Bumblebee had decided to pick a fight with some of the older mechs for no reason.

For the most part the meeting carried on as normal. It was their monthly briefing with the rest of command at the MacCadam's base so Elita-One, Ultra Magnus and Chromia joined them via holo-call. Prowl's mood was not improved by Chromia and Ironhide spending most of the meeting blatantly flirting even though he should have expected it by now.

By the end of it, not much had changed and nothing new had been learnt. Megatron was still a threat and Elita-One didn't have anything new to report. The only thing that had changed was the pain behind Prowl's processor which had gotten even worse.

He headed straight for his office when the meeting was over, not wanting to indulge in pointless small talk that he knew the others, especially Jazz would try to force him into.

However, when he got there, he found a package waiting on his desk. Once again, having learnt from previous experiences with the twins, Prowl was not going to entertain the idea of opening that.

He also made a mental reminder to book a meeting with Red-Alert to re-evaluate his office security as he put the package in his draw to be tested by Wheeljack later.

Prowl had barely opened the morning reports when there was a knock on his door. He had no meetings scheduled and if it was an emergency then someone would’ve hailed him over his internal comms by now.

His processor ache worsened tenfold when he opened the door to find Jazz standing behind it.

“Hey Prowler did you like your present?”

“I haven’t opened it.” Prowl stated.

“Saving it for a reward for when you finish all your paperwork eh?"

Prowl had no plans on ever opening that present but he did not mention that as Jazz continued.

“Anyway, I was just passing by on my way to the rec for mid-day rations if you wanted to join me?”

Prowl knew that his office was not on the way back from the rec room as he deliberately selected it to be as far away as possible. But again, he decided not to mention that.

“Sideswipe brings me my rations as part of his current punishment detail.” Prowl also didn't mention that by the time the Lamborghini was done chatting the audio receptors off everyone, it was usually half spilled and lukewarm but it was preferable to being in the rec room where the constant bombardment of noise irritated his battle computer and nobody wanted him there anyway.

"No worries! Maybe some other time then?"

"Maybe." Prowl replied, shutting the door before he could be roped into agreeing to a specific time.

Frustrated Prowl tried to finish his reports, but thanks his processor ache he kept falling further and further behind schedule. Until there was another knock at his door.

As Sideswipe was not due for another hour, Prowl ignored the request for entry, his processor having already provided a 87% chance of who was most likely at his door and carried on with his reports.

A few moments later, despite being locked, the door beeped open.

Prowl startled as the black and white form of Jazz strolled into the room.

“So I thought, I would save Sideswipe the trouble of getting your rations. Plus I added something a little special.” Jazz said, winking at the unnaturally purple liquid that had been adorned with decorative rust flakes.

“I do not drink high-grade during office hours.” The and neither should you went unsaid. Besides, the texture of sprinkles irritated his intake port.

"Your loss Babe." Jazz shrugged.

“Babe?!" Prowl exclaimed incredulously.

“Yeah mech, everyone is either a bot or a babe and you tall, pale and serious are definitely a babe.”

Prowl bristled as Jazz’s optics roamed his plating.

"If you drink that in front of me, I'll report you." Prowl stated, having to hold himself back from flipping his table out of the way and shoving the spy out himself.

Jazz took the hint, sauntering back out, raising the glass to his lips just as the door closed.

Prowl commed Red-Alert an order for new security codes.

Sideswipe came and went with his mid-day and evening rations and Prowl finally felt his fuel pressure return to near acceptable levels as he worked through his meal breaks to catch up.

Then there was a beep at his door as despite having got new codes, it slid open.

Prowl's fault pressure skyrocketed as Jazz once again waltzed in, this time with an electro-bass in his hands.

“Aww you just missed one pit of an impromptu party!" Jazz cried. "And since you missed our little shindig in the rec, I thought we could have our own private party here instead!”

Jazz had barely started strumming when Prowl marched out from behind his desk. Yanking the instrument from his hands.

"LEAVE ME ALONE!" Prowl yelled, throwing the base across the room.

A flash of emotion slashed across Jazz; faceplate as it crashed into the wall. It was too fast for Prowl’s processor to recognise it, but if he hadn't been designed to look for the details that most bots missed, he probably would not have seen it at all.

Prowl watched Jazz approached the electro-base. The spy knelt beside it, cradling the instrument in his arms like a wounded animal. With his head bowed, his expression was hidden from Prowl's view.

Prowl didn't know much about instruments but to him it looked as though one of the strings had broken. But what he did know was that on their barren wasteland of a planet the probability of them finding a replacement was near to zero.

Before Prowl could even think about what to say, Jazz left without even looking him in the eye.

Feeling himself slip into autopilot, unsure what else to do, Prowl returned to his paperwork, failing to force his brain to focus on his work in an attempt to not analyse the impending guilt.

[lawbyrhys]

Lawyer Responds: Trump's Threat To Lawyers

In typical Trump style, the former president and 34-time convicted felon has taken to his social media website, Truth Social, with rants about all his woes following his 2020 election loss and the subsequent unsuccessful legal cases made in a futile attempt to "win" him the election.

Here's what he said, then I'll get to my response.

"The 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again. Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country."

Considering the resulting various penalties— legitimate suspensions and disbarments faced by members of Trump's legal team both former and present—as an attorney, I don't take him seriously.

In all seriousness, though, the guy with 2500+ civil lawsuits and numerous criminal suits, not to mention his 34 felony convictions, doesn't have any standing when it comes to ethics, legal or otherwise. There's a reason that the ABA has established a Task Force to make sure this election goes correctly, fairly, and smoothly—and it's not because Donald J. Trump plays fair.

As an attorney, I took an oath to uphold and defend the laws of this country, and to do so with ethics and fairness. I am confident that no legitimate lawyer worth his billables would ever commit the offenses Trump and his team have committed, and the call is coming from inside the house. Again, Rudy Giuliani comes to mind.

I don't intend to be partisan in this content. Instead, I intend to do my part to publicize these issues during this high-stakes election season because I value the Constitution and democracy so much. I'm a lawyer who fucking loves what I do; I love my work and I love the people. To me, attacks like the far-right have been committing on our country are legitimately the worst, most unpatriotic moves any political party or politician themselves have ever made unto this country. I despise these actions from anybody, and I would do anything in my power to protect the rule of law from anybody who exhibits this behavior, regardless of party. It just so happens that these far-right conservatives hate this country, it appears. Regardless, though, I'll keep speaking up for what's right and defending the law as I swore to do, and I'm not fucking scared of any far-right threats—not even from Trump himself.

I know right from wrong. Legal from illegal. I know the Constitution front to back, and I use it in my work each and every day for only good.

The same can't be said of Trump and company.

You want to threaten this country? Bring it on.

November 5th: Vote Harris and save democracy.

[churchofnix]

The Church Of Nix

Nix Despair and Build a Better Tomorrow

Draft 2024.07

We, the people, united in our commitment to a just and equitable society, rise to proclaim a new vision for our shared future. We envision a nonviolent, secular, and pluralistic democracy that fosters happiness, joy, and human flourishing through evidence-based policies and the unwavering protection of human rights.

Our Core Principles

1. Nonviolence:

We reject violence in all its forms, both as a means and as an end. We believe that peaceful dialogue, active listening, and mutual respect are the foundations upon which a truly democratic society is built.

2. Secularism:

We champion the absolute separation of church and state, advocating for policies based solely on reason, evidence, and the scientific method. We recognize the diversity of beliefs within our society and believe that a secular government is the only way to ensure that all citizens are treated equally, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

3. Pluralism:

We celebrate the diversity of our society, recognizing that our strength lies in our differences. We embrace the richness of perspectives, experiences, and cultures that make up our communities, and we strive to create a society where everyone feels valued and respected.

4. Participatory Democracy:

We believe that democracy is not a spectator sport, but an active and ongoing process. We demand the full and meaningful participation of all citizens in the decisions that affect their lives. We reject the notion that money is speech and affirm that the only true form of political expression is the human voice.

5. Accountability:

We hold our elected representatives accountable for their actions and decisions. We demand transparency, integrity, and a commitment to the public good from those who hold positions of power. We refuse to be silenced or marginalized, and we will not tolerate corruption or abuse of authority.

6. Transparency:

We believe that open and honest communication is essential for a healthy democracy. We demand that our government operates in a transparent manner, with all decisions and deliberations subject to public scrutiny. We reject secret deals, backroom negotiations, and hidden agendas.

7. Personal Beliefs and Liberties:

We recognize the importance of personal beliefs and values in shaping individual lives, and we uphold the right to individual liberty as long as it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. We firmly oppose any attempts to weaponize personal liberties to discriminate, marginalize, or harm others.

8. Science and Evidence-Based Policy:

We believe that public policy should be informed by the best available scientific evidence and guided by the principles of reason and rationality. We reject policies based on superstition, prejudice, or unfounded beliefs. Such an approach not only leads to more effective and equitable solutions, but also fosters an environment where creativity and innovation can thrive, as individuals are free to explore and experiment without fear of persecution or censorship.

9. Happiness and Well-being:

We believe that the pursuit of happiness and well-being is a fundamental human right. We advocate for policies that promote social, economic, and environmental conditions that enable all individuals to flourish.

Safeguarding Against Exploitation

To ensure that our movement remains true to its principles and does not devolve into a cult or any form of exploitative organization, we establish the following safeguards:

No Financial Exploitation

No Coercion or Manipulation

No Hierarchical Leadership

Transparency and Openness

Emphasis on Individual Autonomy

The Evolution of Our Movement

We recognize that our movement is not static, but a living entity that must adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of our time. We embrace change and encourage the formation of sects or subgroups within our movement that may wish to explore new ideas or approaches, as long as they adhere to our core principles.

Our Demands

An end to all forms of violence and discrimination.

A truly secular government.

Full and meaningful participation for all citizens.

Accountability for our elected representatives.

A transparent and open government.

Our Commitment

We, the people, pledge to work tirelessly to achieve these goals. We will not be deterred by setbacks or opposition. We will continue to raise our voices, organize our communities, and demand a better future for ourselves and for generations to come.

Join Us!

This is not just a manifesto; it is a call to action. We invite all who share our vision to join us in this struggle for a more just, equitable, and democratic society. Together, we can build a world where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A reflection on last week.  :::  April 10, 2023

Robert B. Hubbell

             Tonight, I offer a reflection on last week—and a suggestion about how we must respond. We went into last week expecting the news to be dominated by Trump's arraignment. It was—until the GOP-controlled legislature in Tennessee expelled two young Black Representatives for protesting briefly in the well of the assembly. We then received the report of Pro Publica outlining the manifest corruption of Justice Thomas by Texas millionaire and Hitler memorabilia collector Harlan Crow. And then Judge Kacsmaryk issued a thinly disguised religious fiat banning mifepristone for women across America.

         Each of the above events demonstrates the GOP’s efforts to achieve its goals by breaking the democracy that guarantees their liberties in the first instance. But we must now add to the sad litany a new item—Governor Greg Abbott’s pre-emptive announcement that he will pardon a Texas man convicted of murder after a jury trial. At trial, the defendant was able to present his argument that he acted in self-defense. The jury rejected that claim and voted unanimously to convict him of murder.

         Why does Abbott believe that he is justified in pardoning the murderer even before appeals have been heard? Abbott is, after all, substituting his judgment for that of the jurors who heard the evidence first-hand. Abbot believes the defendant is innocent of murder because he killed a “BLM” protester.

That’s right: Governor Abbott has established a new rule that laws do not apply equally to people protesting police killings and right-wing extremists who are upset by the protests. In a single act, Abbott has altered the law in Texas, demoted protestors demanding justice to second-class status, and told Texas jurors that their voices do not matter when MAGA extremists are on trial. In short, “self-defense” is a MAGA “get out of jail free” card under Greg Abbott’s reign in Texas.

         Together, these four instances illustrate a strategy the GOP learned from Trump: If the democratic system does not produce the result you want, then break democracy to obtain a different result. That is what the Tennessee legislators did to Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, that is what religious zealots did to all Americans, that is what monied interests did in bending the Supreme Court to do the bidding of the privileged and elite, and that is what Greg Abbott has done in summarily overturning a jury verdict that flies in the face of the facts.

         We have been confronting this asymmetry from the very moment Trump announced his bid in 2016, and it has worsened over time. As Democrats toil within the system to forge compromises over competing policies, Republicans break the system to get their way. They simply ignore it (McConnell on Merrick Garland’s nomination), they deny it (outcomes of elections), they falsify it (fake electors), they rig the judicial system to guarantee assignment of cases to a sympathetic federal judge (Kacsmaryk), and they attempt to stop its operation through violence (J6).

         There have been scattered calls for Democrats to employ similar tactics. Indeed, some are calling for the federal government to ignore Judge Kacsmaryk’s order if it is not stayed by the 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court. To state the obvious, to do so would amount to “breaking democracy” simply because we don’t like the result. We must not give in to the temptation to adopt the GOP’s anti-democratic tactics. We must fight our battle of resistance from within the walls and ramparts of democracy if we have any hope of saving it.

         The truth is that the rule of law continues to exist in America today because one of America’s major political parties remains committed to upholding that rule—despite the efforts of the other party to destroy it. If both parties feel emboldened to ignore the rule of law, our democracy will be gone. All that will be left is a contest of brute force in which dark money will substitute for violence.

         I do not believe we will reach that point. I have faith that Democrats will do the right thing despite legitimate feelings of anger, hurt, and despair. In each of the four situations described above, there is a democratic path forward to correct the result. It will not be easy, and we may not succeed entirely. But so long as we have a path forward, we should not set aside our great charter and the laws that give it life. It has endured for more than two centuries during equally trying times; we can make it through the present challenges, as well.

+

[from comments]

Overall, MAGA Republicans are revealing who and what they are. During the mid-terms, Democrats pushed back against an anticipated red tsunami and vastly outperformed expectations. Perhaps the ongoing MAGA performances will convince even more voters to shut them down.

Jessica Craven's latest post in "Chop Wood, Carry Water," celebrates many recent victories. She also writes that the two Tennessee lawmakers who were expelled can run in the special elections for their seats, and if they win, they cannot be expelled again. As for the other ugly instances cited here, I can sympathize with the anguished plea, "what does it take?" that most of us uttered during the long years of the Trump regime. Read Jessica Craven's post from today to understand that there are reasons for optimism.

https://open.substack.com/pub/chopwoodcarrywaterdailyactions/p/extra-extra-april-9th

We are being forged by fire to get as tough as our opponents and as clever. We already outnumber them. We are inspired by the courage of Ukrainians in their fight for their democracy and their lives. We are inspired by the heroes of our own Civil Rights movement that is ongoing. We are inspired by the turnout of the Israeli populace and even its military members that caused the Netanyahu regime to blink. We are being called upon to dig deep, stay tough and committed and resist even though we are tired.

Tomorrow is another day. Let's get on with the work.

[Gary S.]

[mariacallous]

Talk about the promise and the peril of artificial intelligence is everywhere these days. But for many low-income families, communities of color, military veterans, people with disabilities, and immigrant communities, AI is a back-burner issue. Their day-to-day worries revolve around taking care of their health, navigating the economy, seeking educational opportunities, and upholding democracy. But their worries are also being amplified through advanced, persistent, and targeted cyberattacks.

Cyber operations are relentless, growing in scale, and exacerbate existing inequalities in health care, economic opportunities, education access, and democratic participation. And when these pillars of society become unstable, the consequences ripple through national and global communities. Collectively, cyberattacks have severe and long-term impacts on communities already on the margins of society. These attacks are not just a technological concern—they represent a growing civil rights crisis, disproportionately dismantling the safety and security for vulnerable groups and reinforcing systemic barriers of racism and classism. The United States currently lacks an assertive response to deter the continued weaponization of cyber operations and to secure digital access, equity, participation, and safety for marginalized communities.

Health Care

Cyberattacks on hospitals and health care organizations more than doubled in 2023, impacting over 39 million people in the first half of 2023. A late-November cyberattack at the Hillcrest Medical Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, led to a system-wide shutdown, causing ambulances to reroute and life-saving surgeries to be canceled. These attacks impact patients' reliance and trust in health care systems, which may make them more hesitant to seek care, further endangering the health and safety of already vulnerable populations.

The scale and prevalence of these attacks weaken public trust—especially among communities of color who already have deep-rooted fears about our health care systems. The now-condemned Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee, where researchers denied treatment to Black men without their knowledge or consent in order to observe the disease’s long-term effects, only ended 52 years ago. However, the study created a legacy of suspicion and mistrust of the medical community that continues today, leading to a decrease in the life expectancy of Black men and lower participation in medical research among Black Americans. The compounding fact that Black women are three to four times more likely, and American Indian and Alaska Native women are two times more likely, to die from pregnancy-related causes than White women only adds to mistrust.

Erosion of trust also extends to low-income people. Over a million young patients at Lurie Children's Surgical Foundation in Chicago had their names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth exposed in an August 2023 breach. The hospital treats more children insured by Medicaid—an economic hardship indicator—than any other hospital in Illinois. Once breached, a child’s personal data could be used to commit identity fraud, which severely damages credit, jeopardizes education financial aid, and denies employment opportunities. While difficult for anyone, children from financially insecure households are least equipped to absorb or overcome these economic setbacks.

Economic Opportunity

Identity theft is not the only way cyberattacks exploit hard times. Cyberattacks also go after financially vulnerable individuals—and they are getting more sophisticated. In Maryland, hackers targeted Electronic Benefits Transfer cards—used to provide public assistance funds for food—to steal more than $2 million in 2022 and the first months of 2023. That’s an increase of more than 2,100 percent compared to the $90,000 of EBT funds stolen in 2021. Maryland’s income limit to qualify for the government’s food assistance program is $39,000 for a family of four in 2024, and only if they have less than $2,001 in their bank account. Unlike a credit card, which legally protects against fraudulent charges, EBT cards don’t have fraud protections. Efforts to help the victims are riddled with red tape: reimbursements are capped at two months of stolen benefits, and only within a specific time period.

Cybercriminals also target vulnerable populations, especially within older age groups. Since the last reporting in 2019, 40 percent of Asian Pacific Islander Desi Americans (APIDAs) aged 50 and older have reported experiencing financial fraud, with one-third of those victims losing an average of $15,000. From 2018 through 2023, Chinese Embassy Scam robocalls delivered automated messages and combined caller ID spoofing, a method where scammers disguise their phone display information, targeting Chinese immigrant communities. This resulted in more than 350 victims across 27 US states and financial losses averaging $164,000 per victim for a total of $40 million. And for five years, this scam just kept going. As these scams evolve, groups now face increasingly sophisticated AI-assisted calls, where scammers use technology to convincingly mimic loved ones' voices, further exploiting vulnerabilities, particularly among older adults—many of whom live on fixed incomes or live with economic insecurity.

While social movements have fought to promote economic equity, cybercriminals undermine these efforts by exacerbating financial vulnerabilities. From the 1960s La Causa movement advocating for migrant worker rights to the Poor People’s Campaign mobilizing across racial lines, activists have worked to dismantle systemic barriers, end poverty, and push for fair wages. Current attacks on financial systems, however, often target the very groups these movements aim to empower—perpetuating the disparities that advocates have fought against. Digital scams and fraud incidents disproportionately impact those least equipped to recover—including natural disaster victims, people with disabilities, older adults, young adults, military veterans, immigrant communities, and lower-income families. By stealing essential resources, cybercriminals compound hardships for those already struggling to make ends meet or those experiencing some of the worst hardships of their lives—pushing groups deeper into the margins.

Education Access

Education is another area where cybercrime has soared. One of the worst hacks of 2023 exploited a flaw in a file transfer software called MOVEit that multiple government entities, nonprofits, and other organizations use to manage data across systems. This includes the National Student Clearinghouse, which serves 3,600 colleges, representing 97 percent of college students in the US, to provide verification information to academic institutions, student loan providers, and employers.

Attacks on educational systems are devastating at all levels. A top target for ransomware attacks last year was K-12 schools. While the complete data is not available yet, by August 2023 ransomware attacks (where hackers lock an organization’s data and demand payment for its release) hit at least 48 US school districts—three more than in all of 2022. Schools already have limited resources, and cybersecurity can be expensive, so many have few defenses against sophisticated cyberattacks.

The data compromised in attacks against educational institutions includes identifying information and deeply sensitive student records, such as incidents of sexual abuse, mental health records, and reports of abusive parents. This information can affect future opportunities, college admissions, employment, and the mental health of students. The impacts are especially magnified for students from marginalized backgrounds, who already face discrimination in academic and employment opportunities. In 1954, the US Supreme Court struck down segregated public schools as unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education to address disparities based on race, but today’s threats to equitable and accessible education are being jeopardized through digital attacks.

Democratic Participation

Another foundational pillar of our civil rights is also under attack: democracy itself. Since 2016, foreign state actors and state-linked criminals have increasingly used sophisticated cyber operations to suppress minority democratic participation worldwide. The early warnings for the 2024 global elections are clear: Influence and disinformation threats will likely escalate—now enabled by AI-powered cyber operations. Unlike humans, AI systems have few limitations—they can spread disinformation and divisive content to a vast, multilingual, global audience across countless mediums, simultaneously and without rest. Worse, they can do so in an individualized, highly targeted manner.

The undermining of democracy is also more insidious, less about pushing communities toward a specific candidate than sowing distrust in the system itself—which leads fewer people to vote and otherwise suppresses civic participation. The concentration of these attacks on racial and ethnic minority groups means communities of color, who historically have not been in positions of power, will remain marginalized and disenfranchised. Consider a 2022 cyberattack on Mississippi’s election information website on that year’s Election Day—a significant event in a state without modern early voting options. The 2022 elections included crucial midterm elections that decided congressional representation, and Mississippi has the second-highest Black population (39.2 percent) in the US, behind only the District of Columbia—a jurisdiction without voting rights in Congress. The disruption also extended to state judicial elections, where most judges are elected in a single day, due to a lack of judicial primaries. In Mississippi, 11 percent of adults and 16 percent of Black voters could not cast a ballot because of past felony convictions. With the compounded challenges in Mississippi—no early voting, no judicial primaries, and the high rate of disenfranchisement—coupled with the opportunity of a pivotal Black voting bloc, access to voting information is imperative for those who can vote.

Weaponizing cyber operations for any form of voter suppression leaves marginalized groups further aggrieved and isolated. Worse, it takes away our only ability to address systemic inequities in wealth, health, and education: democratic participation.

These compounding problems require a new perspective on cyberattacks that looks beyond lost dollars, breached files, or doomsday debates over generative AI tools like ChatGPT or artificial general intelligence. Marginalized communities are suffering now and civil rights advocates cannot take on these burdens alone. To quote civil rights icon Fannie Lou Hamer, “The only thing we can do is work together.” Cybersecurity analysts, developers, journalists, researchers, and policymakers ​​must incorporate civil rights into our work by building inclusive defenses, understanding demographic trends in cyber attacks, deterring misuse of AI, and utilizing diverse teams.

Cyber operations are being used to attack the foundation of civil rights, democracy, and dignity around the world, and that is a problem that affects everyone.